TANO v SOCRATES Substantive issue:

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. The petition was filed
directly to the SC.
Facts:
Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance
wherein it banned the shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto
Princesa for a period of 5 yrs 1993 - 1998
To implement the ordinance the mayor issued an order wherein it required
to obtain Mayors permit for operation.
Another resolution was issued prohibiting the catching, gathering and
selling of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms
The first batch of petitioners were charged criminally charged with violating
the resolution and ordinance.
While the 2nd batch, which consisted of 77 fishermen
As to the 1st batch, they filed this petition to prevent the prosecution and
trial until the constitutionality or legality of the ordinances they allegedly
violated shall have been resolved.
As to the 2nd batch, they merely claimed that being fishermen, they would
be adversely affected by the ordinances
ISSUE: Is the case proper for a petition for declaratory relief?
HELD:
Supreme Court is not possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for
declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved.
The ordinances are effective only up to 5 years and enacted pursuant to the
exercise of powers under the LGC related to the protection and
preservation of the environment.
Laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this
presumption, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction.
Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general
welfare provisions of the LGC shall be liberally interpreted to give more
powers to the local government units in accelerating economic
development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the
community.
One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on
devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including
the conservation of mangroves.This necessarily includes the enactment of
ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within the municipal
waters.
Finally, it imposes upon the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang
panlungsod, and the sangguniang panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances
to [p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts
which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other forms
of destructive fishing. . . and such other activities which result in pollution,
acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological
imbalance.

As to 2nd petitioners, the instant petition is obviously one for declaratory relief. That
is, for a declaration that the ordinances in question are null and void for being
unconstitutional.
However, the Court said that the petition must fail. Since the SC is not
possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if
questions of law are involved.
It being steeled that the Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over
such petitions.

As to 1st- certiorari must fail on the ground of prematurity amounting to lack of

cause of action.
They did not file a motion to quash in the criminal proceedings. The lower
courts in such criminal proceedings did not act with GADELEJ. If the
motion to quash is denied, certiorari is not the remedy, but to go to trial
without prejudice to reiterating special defenses, if after trial, and adverse
decision is rendered, they could appeal.